Techdirt. Stories filed under "sneakers"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "sneakers"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:20:00 PSTNike Sues Guy Who Ordered Single Pair Of Counterfeit Sneakers Over The InternetMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101216/03071712300/nike-sues-guy-who-ordered-single-pair-counterfeit-sneakers-over-internet.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101216/03071712300/nike-sues-guy-who-ordered-single-pair-counterfeit-sneakers-over-internet.shtmlaccidentally buy a counterfeit pair of shoes, Nike might sue you. Via Glyn Moody, we learn that Nike chose to sue a guy who ordered a single pair of trainers online, believing they were legitimate Nike shoes. The shoes were seized at the UK border as counterfeits. Nike could have gone after the actual counterfeiters. Or it could have (perhaps more questionably) gone after some other third parties, such as the retailers who sold the shoes. Instead, it chose option 3 and sued the buyers directly. Most of the suits were settled (or, apparently, ignored).

However, one customer, a Mr. E. Bateman, thought this was ridiculous, and fought it. He pointed out that he simply thought he was buying legitimate Nikes, and it seems rather ridiculous to then be sued for it. The judge noted that, under UK trademark law, the buyer's intent is absolutely meaningless:

"Whether or not the defendant believed the goods were authentic is irrelevant to the question of trade mark infringement. Whether the goods are infringing goods or counterfeit goods is an objective question. The Defendant's state of mind does not matter. Equally the Defendant's state of mind is irrelavant to the question of importation."

In other words, don't ever buy Nike shoes, or you might get sued.

Of course, all this makes you wonder: what the hell was Nike thinking? We've seen how suing customers backfired badly for the RIAA and others, but this goes even beyond that. Here's a case where a guy appeared to believe he had just bought legitimate shoes, and Nike's response is to sue him, take him to court, and then win its lawsuit against him. The judge did point out that he "questioned whether the sledge hammer of these proceedings is necessary in order to crack this nut of this magnitude," and even then Nike pushed forward, claiming that the companies has "no realistic alternative to enforcing their rights this way."

Um. Sure they do: the alternative is not suing their customer. That said, at least the judge did not make Mr. Bateman pay any fine or award to Nike (even though Nike did ask for money), but rather, he has to promise not to infringe in the future, allow the shoes (still held by UK customs) to be destroyed and provide the details of where he bought the shoes. Of course, the only way he can make sure not to infringe in such a manner again is to never buy Nike shoes again, since he has no way of knowing beforehand if they're infringing or not. Nice work Nike.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>nike-picks-up-the-RIAA-strategyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101216/03071712300Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:40:00 PDTApple Trying To Patent Not Letting You Use Your Nike+iPod With Non-Nike ShoesMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080914/2249062264.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080914/2249062264.shtmltrying to patent those ways. It's got a patent application in for smart garments which would create basically a DRM for devices -- forceably pairing a device like the Nike+iPod sensor to a specific shoe.

This seems odd for a whole variety of reasons. First, it seems positively silly for Apple to do this, as it severely limits the market for the devices, and lessens the value of the iPod. You can see why Nike might ask for it, but it's hard to see why Apple would implement it. Second, however, is that this seems highly questionable as a patent. I mean why would you patent something that makes your product less desirable? Would Apple actually sue someone else (say, Microsoft) for doing the same thing? That would (oh no!) force Microsoft to make its product more useful and more valuable. Finally, as a patent, how is this not "obvious"? It seems like a bad idea to implement, but that doesn't make it non-obvious. If any engineer wanted to create such a system, it wouldn't take much thought at all. The whole thing seems rather pointless.